voter IDs

The U.S. Supreme Court, 6-3, has allowed Texas' new voter ID law to go into effect for next month's elections, The Huffington Post reports. In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the law could impose "'an unconstitutional poll tax and risks denying the right to vote to hundreds of thousands of eligible voters.'"

U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzalez Ramos found that the law was enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose, HuffPo also reports.

The majority's order was unsigned.

The Arkansas Supreme Court struck down a state law requiring voters to show photo identification before casting their ballots, the AP reports. The Supreme Court said the requirement was unconstitutional because the "Arkansas Constitution lists specific requirements to vote: that a person be a citizen of both the U.S. and Arkansas, be at least 18 years old and be lawfully registered. Anything beyond that amounts to a new requirement and is therefore unconstitutional, the court ruled."

Pennsylvania's voter ID law has been struck down, The Legal Intelligencer's Sara Spencer reports. The judge reasoned: “'The right to vote, fundamental in Pennsylvania, is irreplaceable, necessitating its protection before any deprivation occurs. Deprivation of the franchise is neither compensable nor replaceable by after-the-fact legal remedies, necessitating injunctive and declaratory relief,'" Spencer writes. Oddly, the decision was not published so it could be citeable.

The Seventh Circuit's Judge Richard Posner has been getting a lot of criticism for allegedly expressing some sort of regret for writing the opinion upholding Indiana's voter identification law.

The line in Posner's new book that caused the stir was: "I plead guilty to having written the majority opinion (affirmed by the Supreme Court) upholding Indiana’s requirement that prospective voters prove their identity with a photo ID—a type of law now widely regarded as a means of voter suppression rather than of fraud prevention."

Posner has been criticized for allegedly doing something that reflects adversely on his impartiality or that detracts from the dignity of the judicial office.

Now Posner writes in The New Republic that he was not expressing ardent regret for his opinion. Posner said he was just advancing the argument in his book "that in many cases judges can’t have any confidence in the soundness of their decisions if they do not have empirical data concerning the likely consequences of deciding the case one way rather than another."

The Economist opined that it was a good thing for Posner to be frank about a "mistake." While Posner is walking back any idea that he expressed that the voter ID case was wrongly decided, The Economist's upshot is still relevant: Posner deserves credit for intellectual honesty about the process of judging. "His reasoned reconsideration is a testament to his willingness to keep an open mind, to listen to counterarguments and to adapt his own view when the evidence warrants a switch," The Economist said today. "Would we prefer our judges narrow-minded, crusty and intransigent?"